|
Post by papageno on Jun 29, 2007 7:34:53 GMT -4
Your claim, your burden of proof: where is the evidence that undamaged steel was excluded in the selection? Read more carefully: "Nonetheless, these analyses indicated some zones within WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures." But since you keep complaining about the selection, one would say -- although you have not spelled it out -- that you have chosen option number 1: Now, where is the evidence that undamaged steel was excluded in the selection? Yawnorama... If the steel samples cannot validate the simulations, why are you complaining about the selection process? Anyway, the steel samples were not the only input used for the simulations. For example, the contents of the WTC could produce several times the gravitational potential energy of the Twin Towers as heat. Now, how about providing evidence for your claim that the simulations are not validated? And please avoid "If I run the zoo" arguments: we already know that you have no expertise whatsoever in the relevant fields. Because for professional engineers omission is unethical and against their interest. You are the one who has " known hundreds, possibly thousands, of engineers" and " worked with them, day after day, month after month, for 25 years. They are not a bunch of incompetents, or "evil-doers". " And yet you cannot provide references to critiques against the NIST's investigation published in peer-reviewed engineering journals. Of course they do not declare their work as infallible: no scientist does. And you have done nothing to prove that there are any flaws in the reports, and therefore you have no basis for claiming that the reports are incomplete. Now, where is that list of mising data and the proof that those missing data are necessary to one of those thousands of engineers that are neither incompetent nor evil-doers to evaluate the NIST's investigation? Do you remember what I said: "You, the layman, can find the obvious flaws in the reports published by NIST, but professional engineers whose business is directly affected by those reports seem unable, or unwilling, to point out the same flaws." How about you apologize to those thousands of engineers that you have known and worked with for implying that they are a bunch of incompetents? What a pathetic excuse for your failure! The reports are public, and so are the peer-reviewed engineering journals. So, you admit that there are not critiques published in a peer-reviewed engineering journal. Now, to a part from one of my posts you ignored: And this PDF, which has been submitted to a peer-review engineering journal. You ignored this as well. Yes, and it is clear that your arguments have no merit, because they stem from your ignorance and your prejudices. Don't blame others for your failures: and these people cannot afford to ignore the NIST's investigation and to keep quiet about its short-comings.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 29, 2007 7:34:23 GMT -4
I notice that you're only replying to Papageno, Turbonium. Surely my question's easier to answer. If I remember correctly, that's a typical tactic. Also, if he gave straight and unambiguous answers, he would not be able to weasel out of his contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 27, 2007 15:56:55 GMT -4
Of course you are nit-picking. You are complaining about the wording in the report instead of providing evidence that undamaged steel samples from the impact floors were found and excluded in the selection process. It's valid criticism, not nit-picking. You seem to believe that NIST's steel selection criteria would not lead to the exclusion of undamaged / unexposed steel from the impact floors. The only reason offered is that such steel would be collected because it would be "deemed important" by the volunteer group of engineers. Sorry, did I miss the part where you provide the evidence proving that undamaged steel was excluded in the selection? Wait... Nope, I have not missed anything. As usual you skipped the step of providing the evidence supporting your claims. But again, why would it be? What would make such unaffected steel stand out as worthy of their consideration? See my reply #15: That's why steel not exposed to high temperatures was just as valuable as steel exposed to high temperatures. Make up your mind: either you accept the samples not exposed to high temperatures as significant to the validation of the simulations, or stop complaining about the selection process. How "significant" do you think NIST considered the samples were in validating the collapse models? Do you know the actual part they played in the validation of NIST's simulations? See above the quote you tried to dismiss without reasoning or evidence. Much to my surprise (and amusement) papageno is apparently convinced that I..... "accuse the world-wide community of engineers of incompetence or malice"Whoa! I Did I say that? This has been explained as nauseam. You did not spell it out, but it is a necessary consequence of your claims that the engineers world-wide have ignored or overlooked the flaws in the NIST's investigation. Engineers have the ethical duty and the interest as a business to keep up to date, especially when it comes to the most plausible explanation of accidents and collapses. The fact that you don't like this consequence of your unfounded claims, does not make it any less true. Grow a spine instead of saying "Who? ME?" All the data necessary to validate and duplicate the findings? How cute... You, the layman, can find the obvious flaws in the reports published by NIST, but professional engineers whose business is directly affected by those reports seem unable, or unwilling, to point out the same flaws. Now, where is that detailed list of missing data, and the proof that those data are absolutely necessary to engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation? NO. Your "line of reasoning" here is warped and twisted beyond all hope. Why don't you grow some balls and face the fact that you are utterly ignorant in these matters? You assume that the entire NIST report has been taken apart from top to bottom by "the world-wide community of engineers" (whatever that's supposed to mean) with a fine tooth comb. That this "WWCOE" has carefully reviewed and / or replicated all the tests, simulations, analyses, etc. They've pored over 10,000 pages of material, looking for any flaws, omissions or inconsistencies. Trying to shift the goalposts won't help you. Please, open your eyes and face the fact that there are people in the world that know more than you: if you can spot technical flaws in that report, people with the relevant expertise can do it much better. I've known (and/or know) hundreds, possibly thousands, of engineers. I've worked with them, day after day, month after month, for 25 years. They are not a bunch of incompetents, or "evil-doers". Then you'll have to admit that there is nothing wrong with the NIST's investigation, because these same people -- who are neither incompetents nor evil-doers -- are not pointing out any flaws in it. The fact that, despite knowing thousand of engineers, you cannot provide a shred of a criticism to the NIST's reports published in peer-reviewed engineering journals, only supports my point. They also are much too busy with their own work and businesses to devote months or years of their time, and spend a fortune (from Lord knows what budget) doing a full-blown study of peer group reports / investigations, such as NIST's. The recommendations that stem from the NIST's investigation have a direct impact on their work. They cannot afford to ignore it. Now, where is your evidence that the NIST's reports are incomplete? Also, it is time to choose: 1) accept that steel not exposed to high temperatures is significant in validating the simulations, and complain about the selection process after you have provided the evidence that something went wrong; 2) stop complaining about the selection process, because only steel exposed to high temperatures would have been significant in validating the simulations, after you proved it.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 24, 2007 10:36:59 GMT -4
So, you are now nit-picking the wording in the report because you cannot prove that the NIST excluded from the analysis steel from the impacted floors that was not damaged by the impact nor exposed to fire. Basically, the NIST actually satisfied your selection criteria even though it did not say the way you wanted. What was the issue,a again? It's not nit-picking. They made a specific list of what steel to look for and collect. The only steel from the impact floors sought out was fire exposed/impact damaged steel. They made that distinction very clear. No steel needed to be specifically excluded, because they only looked for specifically included steel. Of course you are nit-picking. You are complaining about the wording in the report instead of providing evidence that undamaged steel samples from the impact floors were found and excluded in the selection process. Not to mention the contradiction in your "If I ran the zoo" requests: you accept only steel exposed to high temperatures as validating the simulation, but then you complain that the NIST did not search for steel not exposed to the fires. Make up your mind: either you accept the samples not exposed to high temperatures as significant to the validation of the simulations, or stop complaining about the selection process. NIST did not satisfy my selection criteria, in any way whatsoever. The NIST engineers are surely shaking in their boots out of fear of not having satisfied your criteria.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 24, 2007 6:14:15 GMT -4
I was asked... ...provide the evidence that the world-wide community of engineers is incompetent or malicious. And I replied.... I never said that, and it's a lost cause if you still can't grasp that fact by now. The only "unavoidable consequence" of my comments on certain issues (such as this one) is that someone will inevitably misinterpret / twist them, then leap to a faulty conclusion(s) of monolithic proportions. " Brave Sir Robin ran away. Bravely ran away, away! When danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about And gallantly he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat, Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!" If you don't have the balls to take responsibility for your claims, don't make them. Now, where is the evidence to support your accusation of incompetence? I said NIST did not release all the data, which is a fact. Sorry, but so far it is only your opinion, which is clearly uninformed (*cough* NCSTAR 1-6C *cough*). If the NIST had not published all the data necessary to engineers to evaluate the investigation, the world-wide community of engineers would have pointed that out. You have not been able to provide evidence of such criticism in peer-reviewed engineering journals. And by claiming that the " NIST did not release all the data, which is a fact", you implicitly accuse the world-wide community of engineers of incompetence or malice, because finding flaws in the NIST investigation is the duty and interest of the engineers. Unfortunately for you, you have never provided any evidence in support of either accusation (incompleteness of the reports, or incompetence of the engineers). I believe data held by NIST is required in order for independent groups to conduct a thorough evaluation and validation of the simulations. You said it was a fact, not a belief. So, where is your evidence? You've somehow twisted that into "the world-wide community of engineers is incompetent or malicious" as what I "believe". It's amazing how far afield some people will go on nothing. Like claiming that the NIST's report are incomplete, despite not having even looked at them? *cough* NCSTAR 1-6C *cough* I explained the consequences of your claims: it is not my fault if you are to chicken to accept them. You still don't get it. NIST has the detailed list of missing data!! How cute... You claimed that there are missing data from the report, but you cannot make a list of the missing data. Ah yes, it's because you believe, not because you know... They state in their report that..... The input files for the computer model contained about 20,000 records..Dozens of full-scale, full-length calculations, plus hundreds of smaller, shorter calculations...performed to assess the sensitivity of the input parameters.So please point out where to find each and every one of the dozens of full-scale, full-length calculations. And the hundreds of smaller calculations. And the 20,000 records of input files. Prove that independent engineers need those files. Because I haven't. I have found no more than a small percentage of them within the entirety of NIST's WTC reports - some 10,000+ pages in total. We have already seen that you research skills are severly lacking *cough* NCSTAR 1-6C *cough*. But why don't you prove that independent engineers need those data to evaluate the simulations? You cited NCSTAR 1-6C and asked me to comment on it. This is a 252 page report titled "Component, Connection, and Subsystem Structural Analysis" [ snip!Who was twisting the words of the other? Let me refresh your memory: I did not ask to comment on that report: I simply pointed you to the report which contained information that you apparently could not find. More to the point - I couldn't find the calculations for most of their analyses, anywhere in the report. There are various tables, charts, etc. with data, which is great. But where are all the calculations which produced their results? Did I miss the part where you prove that those calculations are required by qualified engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation? and prove that the missing data are necessary for engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation. First of all, AFAIK, no independent peer group has yet conducted a thorough analysis and full evaluation of NIST's investigation (ie: the computer simulations). We have already seen that you research skills are severely lacking. Why don't you have a look at peer-reviewed engineering journals? And what happened to the Iranian and North-Korean engineers? I assume you aren't aware of the existence of any such report, or you would have already cited it to prove me wrong.... Sorry, but the burden of proof is yours. So now, to address your challenge - can I "prove the missing data are necessary for engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation"? The simple answer is no. I can't prove it. At least for now. Thank you. Now it is clear that you have no factual basis for you accusation. It is time to withdraw it and apologize for wasting our time. But what about the opposite? Can it be proven that the missing data isn't necessary for engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation? No, it can't, imo. Your uninformed opinion has no bearing on reality. I let the engineers decide what they need to evaluate the NIST's investigation. You can get every answer right in a calculus exam, but you'll still fail if you didn't write down all the work to show (prove) how you arrived at your answers. You have never seen a paper in a scientific journal, have you? The NIST's report are technical reports aimed at the engineers. The engineers don't need to see all the calculation steps, because they know how the methods used work. Would the engineers know how NIST derived all of their results? That is, would the engineers know all the sub-calculations, aggregates, etc. used by NIST, without the benefit of seeing the calculations in print?? Yes, because they use the same methods. Would the engineers know all the input variables and parameters established by NIST to derive their results? Would they need to know anything more than what is found in the NIST reports? You don't think so. But I certainly do. No, you do not think, you believe because that's what you need to keep your prejudices unchallenged. No proof exists as yet, for either claim. It is a pity that you are so unwilling to learn.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 24, 2007 5:38:11 GMT -4
Because, as I said, the impact zone refers to the impact floors - the entire section of floors within that regionPlease provide evidence for this claim. Why should they care about columns parts of the building that weren't effected by the impacts? Sure. Look at the very first point listed below.... wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3B.pdf (pg.47) "Samples located in and around the impact floors", clearly applies to ALL the steel from these floors, whether or not affected by impact (and / or fire). This is exactly how NIST (and FEMA) should have put it to begin with, as part of the steel selection criteria. But no, NIST only said this after they had collected the samples. Why did they make such a distinction beforehand - for the steel collection? For the steel collection..... - Exterior column panels and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft.
- Exterior column panels and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 directly above and below the impact zones.After the steel was collected, the pieces they considered "especially important", and of "special value", were... "Samples located in and around the impact floors"That means ALL of the steel directly above, within, and below the impact floors. So again - why did they make a distinction beforehand - for the steel collection? So, you are now nit-picking the wording in the report because you cannot prove that the NIST excluded from the analysis steel from the impacted floors that was not damaged by the impact nor exposed to fire. Basically, the NIST actually satisfied your selection criteria even though it did not say the way you wanted. What was the issue,a again?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 23, 2007 7:28:09 GMT -4
turbonium, you do realize that "impact zone" is the gap in the structure left by the impact of the plane, don't you? That there can be no columns within this gap because the impact had severed them and thrown them around? That "directly above and below the impact zone" refers to the boundaries of the gap? The "impact zone" refers to the impact floors. Not just "the gap in the structure". So, that would then be covered by " Exterior columns and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft." NIST sought out steel directly above and below the impact zones. If they really meant "impact hole", then why didn't they mention looking for steel beside the impact zone (hole)? Why didn't they just call it an "impact hole" to begin with, if that's what they actually meant? Do you think they really only wanted steel directly above and below the hole, but not elsewhere from the same floors? What part of " Exterior columns and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft" is not clear? Do you have actual evidence that steel from the impact floors has been excluded? You do realize there is no logic in your argument, don't you? I am still waiting for you to provide a logical argument that does not start with "If I ran the zoo". Now, how about you address the points you ignored last time *cough* NCSTAR 1-6C *cough*, and provide the evidence that the world-wide community of engineers is incompetent or malicious. I never said that, and it's a lost cause if you still can't grasp that fact by now. Of course you have not said that, but it is a unavoidable consequence of your line of "reasoning". It is not my fault if you are not willing to take responsibility for the consequences of your unfounded claims. Now, how about actually addressing the points you tried to ignore? This is the post in question. Show us your detailed list of data missing from the reports, and prove that the missing data are necessary for engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 22, 2007 5:45:32 GMT -4
turbonium,
you do realize that "impact zone" is the gap in the structure left by the impact of the plane, don't you? That there can be no columns within this gap because the impact had severed them and thrown them around? That "directly above and below the impact zone" refers to the boundaries of the gap?
Now, how about you address the points you ignored last time *cough* NCSTAR 1-6C *cough*, and provide the evidence that the world-wide community of engineers is incompetent or malicious.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 16, 2007 11:29:11 GMT -4
turbonium, have you ever bothered to verify your suspicions with a trained, licensed civil engineer? It shouldn't be that hard. I'm sure you're capable of picking up a phone and scheduling a meeting with an engineering professor at the nearest university. There was a long thread on the BAUT forum about the validation of the simulations. JayUtah, who has the relevant expertise, explained quite well why the NIST's simulations are validated. But that did not change turbonium's mind about the issue. Yes, I am appealing to relevant authority. You have not demonstrated the necessary expertise for any of the claims you make to have any weight. This makes me wonder why you haven't felt the need to verify your expectations and assumptions with someone who has the relevant knowledge and experience. That's not how CTs work. Despite their claims, they are not looking for the truth, but for a confirmation of their prejudices. And having to accept the opinion of experts in the relevant fields means to risk having their pre-determined conclusions challenged. That's why they re-define expert as "somebody who agrees with me". Or do you contend that the engineering community is either incompetent or untrustworthy? Frankly, I find this insulting, and I'm not even two years into my B.ASc. program yet. The incompetence or untrustworthiness of the engineering community is an inevitable consequence of the CT claims that the NIST's investigation is not valid but no expert has criticized it. Of course, they never bring any evidence in support of that accusation.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 16, 2007 8:06:55 GMT -4
Bravo. At long last, a reply. You obviously agree with NIST's steel collection criteria. But why? Because, you are "..quite happy to accept the expert judgement of the world-wide community of engineers.." First of all, how are you so sure that NIST's report (and specifically, NIST's steel collection criteria) has been universally accepted and approved by peers within the engineering community? Feel free to provide references to papers in peer-reviewed engineering journals that criticize the NIST's investigation. Do you know of anyone (or group), either outside of, or within, the "world-wide community of engineers", who has even addressed (and supported) NIST's steel selection criteria? You mean, apart from Jay WIndley? Again, on these points... NIST'S STEEL COLLECTION CRITERIA[/u] Fire / impact damaged floors - only seek out and collect steel which has been affected by exposure to fire, and/or impact damage. Floors directly above and below the fire/impact damage - seek out and collect all steel. Are you able to make an actual case in support of NIST's criteria? [/quote] Do you expect that steel samples far away from the impact zones and not damaged by the impact or the fire, would tell us something about the impact and fire damage? Are you able to make a case refuting the selection criteria? All you've done is make an appeal to authority - ie: they are the "experts", so that in itself means they are right. Sorry, but that's not a valid defense. Are you saying that the very people that build stuff and are responsible if it fails, don't have the expertise to judge whether the collection criteria are appropriate? In this case, the authority I am appealing to has the expertise and competence in the relevant fields. You, on the other hand, have shown no such expertise and competence. Basically, you are saying that the world-wide community of engineers is incompetent. Care to support you accusation? maybe they know something that you don't? But they just haven't come out and said what it is? If you are too lazy, it is not my fault. From here: Also, have a look at this PDF. This is one of the main problems with official story supporters. NIST's report is instantly accepted as the final word. It can't be challenged as flawed or invalid, in whole or in part, in any way whatsoever. Because they are the "experts". Sorry, where do show that their expertise is not in the relevant fields? It's the standard fallback reply to any valid criticism of NIST that cannot be properly rebuked. Just shout out "They are the experts". Sorry, where have you proved that the world-wide engineering community is not competent? Now, how about addressing the points you left out? Did you forget to include your specific and detailed list of data that are missing from the 42 volumes of the report, but are necessary for other engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation? [...] Be specific: where is this data supposed to be? And why would it be necessary for the evaluation of the NIST's work? [...] Apparently you managed to overlook the whole of NCSTAR 1-6C (title: Component, Connection and Subsystem Structural Analysis). [...] Sorry, but the burden is yours: show us where the data are supposed to be but are missing, after you have shown that those data are actually necessary. As you can see, you tried to sweep under the rug the fact that you cannot substantiate your complaints about the NIST's reports. Now, it is time for you to support you numerous claims about missing data from the NIST's reports.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 14, 2007 16:13:21 GMT -4
You say you read the reports, so it is up to you to show what is wrong with them. I already have. I already told you. You have shown little understanding of the relevant subjects, therefore your "If I ran the zoo" arguments are worth less than a sundried dingo's kidney. I've repeatedly pointed out to you what was wrong with NIST's steel collection criteria. It's quite obvious that you can't (or won't) address the issue. Do you agree or disagree with NIST's steel collection criteria? I am quite happy to accept the expert judgement of the world-wide community of engineers, the ones that actually build stuff and are responsible if it fails. They don't seem to have problems accepting the validity of the NIST's investigation: maybe they know something that you don't? Sorry, are you saying that no data are presented in the reports? No. Certainly, there is some data in the reports. But a great deal of the data is not. Did you forget to include your specific and detailed list of data that are missing from the 42 volumes of the report, but are necessary for other engineers to evaluate the NIST's investigation? Or is this simply yet another "If I ran the zoo" argument? Where do you show that there are data necessary to replicate the simulations which are not reported? What about reporting the adjusted data? For example, the range of values for the "adjusted" pulling forces, and the sub-calculations used to derive those values (as noted below)? Are you claiming they aren't necessary to replicate the simulations? Be specific: where is this data supposed to be? And why would it be necessary for the evaluation of the NIST's work? Which data necessary to evaluate the simulations are not presented in the reports? NIST stated....... To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance… the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted within the range of values derived from the subsystem computations.wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (pg. 144) Did they publish the subsystem computations, and the range of values derived from them? Have I overlooked it all in the reports? Apparently you managed to overlook the whole of NCSTAR 1-6C (title: Component, Connection and Subsystem Structural Analysis). Research is not your strong point, is it? Where else has NIST "adjusted the input" when the simulations "deviated from the photographic...or eyewitness evidence"? You read the reports... well, at least you claim you read them. Maybe you should give it another try. And, can you point out where NIST has published the "range of values" and subsystem computations for these other "adjustments"? Sorry, but the burden is yours: show us where the data are supposed to be but are missing, after you have shown that those data are actually necessary.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 10, 2007 11:16:33 GMT -4
So far you have not raised issues, you only displayed your stubborn ignorance. If you still can't understand the fact that I have raised specific issues, then you should really look to yourself for a fitting display of "stubborn ignorance". You have presented "If I ran the zoo" arguments, which are worthless because you have shown little understanding of the relevant subjects. Since nomuse appears to have no desire to address my question, let me ask you the same thing.... Do you believe NIST's steel collection criteria was completely valid for a thorough and proper investigation? If so, why?Are you trying to shift the burden of proof? You say you read the reports, so it is up to you to show what is wrong with them. If you have read the reports, as you claim, show us specifically what data would independent engineers need to evaluate the NIST investigation, but are not presented in the reports. All of the data. Sorry, are you saying that no data are presented in the reports? If so, you have to look no further than NCSTAR 1-5C and E, which describe the tests of workstation burns. These test can be replicated independently and their results have been used for the simulations. "The input files for the computer model contained about 20,000 records..""Dozens of full-scale, full-length calculations, plus hundreds of smaller, shorter calculations...performed to assess the sensitivity of the input parameters." Sorry, where do you show that engineers need those files to evaluate the simulation? On top of that, the core damage estimates were extremely critical factors in the fire simulations.... "The amount of damage to the core also affected the results of the fire simulations in a noticeable way, but it was not possible to say which of the core damage estimates was better or worse.""Of the fire-related parameters studied. the distribution and condition of the furnishings and the damage to the core walls/shafts had the greatest influence on the model outcome..""...the core damage was to be provided by the impact analysis (NIST NCSTAR 1-2)..Ultimately, the impact analysis was to provide a range of damage estimates that were to be input into the fire simulations."Where do you show that there are data necessary to replicate the simulations which are not reported? The impact damage simulations.... In WTC 1... "...nine of 47 core columns were severed or heavily damaged."(6 severed, 3 heavily damaged in severe case) (3 severed, 4 heavily damaged in base case) In WTC 2... "..11 of 47 core columns were severed or heavily damaged." (10 severed, 1 heavily damaged, in severe case) (5 severed, 4 heavily damaged, in base case) wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf (pgs. 1iii, 1vii) wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf (pgs.303,304) Consider that NIST's own simulations found that, at most, only one core column could be severed by one of the engines. (ie: in a direct impact). The other sections of the plane (fuselage, wings, etc.) were incapable of causing even heavy damage to a core column. Which data necessary to evaluate the simulations are not presented in the reports? It's obvious that one plane impacted a tower off-center, so only one engine - at most - could have directly hit and severed a core column. The other tower had two core columns - at most - being hit and severed. Yet NIST had up to 10 core columns being severed in their simulations!! Maybe if I repeat it often enough it'll start to sink in... Which data necessary to evaluate the simulations are not presented in the reports?And again, as NIST stated.... "...the core damage was to be provided by the impact analysis (NIST NCSTAR 1-2)..Ultimately, the impact analysis was to provide a range of damage estimates that were to be input into the fire simulations." So, they combine ridiculous damage estimates with tweaked up input data, for their fire simulations. Which data are not presented? And then they claim the collapse models are realistic, and the most probable scenarios for what actually happened? Um, sure. I'm convinced. Sorry, turbonium, but you have completely evaded my question. I did not ask you to quote mine the reports and repeat your usual and worthless "If I run the zoo" complaints. Now, show us specifically which data are necessary to evaluate the NIST investigation and are not presented in the reports.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 7, 2007 16:25:53 GMT -4
Now, turbonium, have you read the reports NCSTAR 1-5, 1-5A, B, C, D, E, F, G? Yes. Will you address the specific issues I've raised? So far you have not raised issues, you only displayed your stubborn ignorance. If you have read the reports, as you claim, show us specifically what data would independent engineers need to evaluate the NIST investigation, but are not presented in the reports.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 6, 2007 15:39:51 GMT -4
Quoting a website about scientific method is a dead give-away of never having practiced science.
Now, turbonium, have you read the reports NCSTAR 1-5, 1-5A, B, C, D, E, F, G?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 27, 2007 8:16:53 GMT -4
turbonium, have you read the reports NCSTAR 1-5, 1-5A, B, C, D, E, F, G?
|
|